fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
LTSMin compared to other tools («Surprise» models, ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents LTSMin' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

LTSMin versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin GreatSPN Both tools   LTSMin GreatSPN
All computed OK 13 3 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 25 25
LTSMin > GreatSPN 11   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < GreatSPN 10 Times tool wins 29 21
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 13 11


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
All computed OK 0 14 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 16 45
LTSMin > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools 21 Times tool wins 14 47
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus smpt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for smpt, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to smpt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin smpt Both tools   LTSMin smpt
All computed OK 0 14 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = smpt 0 Times tool wins 15 46
LTSMin > smpt 10   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < smpt 21 Times tool wins 26 35
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than smpt, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than smpt, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, smpt wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Tapaal Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal
All computed OK 0 14 19   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 16 45
LTSMin > Tapaal 7   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Tapaal 21 Times tool wins 24 37
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LoLa+red Both tools   LTSMin LoLa+red
All computed OK 0 14 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 18 43
LTSMin > LoLa+red 2   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LoLa+red 21 Times tool wins 28 33
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than LoLa+red, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than LoLa+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LTSMin+red Both tools   LTSMin LTSMin+red
All computed OK 0 14 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 16 45
LTSMin > LTSMin+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LTSMin+red 21 Times tool wins 34 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than LTSMin+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Marcie+red Both tools   LTSMin Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 14 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 27 34
LTSMin > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Marcie+red 21 Times tool wins 21 40
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than Marcie+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Smart+red Both tools   LTSMin Smart+red
All computed OK 0 14 18   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 13 48
LTSMin > Smart+red 8   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Smart+red 21 Times tool wins 13 48
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than Smart+red, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than Smart+red, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin 2022-gold Both tools   LTSMin 2022-gold
All computed OK 0 14 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 17 44
LTSMin > 2022-gold 9   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < 2022-gold 21 Times tool wins 25 36
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than 2022-gold, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, LTSMin is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how LTSMin compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When LTSMin is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin BVT-2023 Both tools   LTSMin BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 14 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
LTSMin > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < BVT-2023 21 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than BVT-2023, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for LoLA, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LoLA Both tools   LTSMin LoLA
All computed OK 0 14 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 12 49
LTSMin > LoLA 14   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LoLA 21 Times tool wins 26 35
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than LoLA, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for Marcie, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
All computed OK 5 0 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 28 19
LTSMin > Marcie 1   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Marcie 15 Times tool wins 24 23
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 5 14


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than Marcie, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than Marcie, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Smart Both tools   LTSMin Smart
All computed OK 22 0 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Smart 0 Times tool wins 26 21
LTSMin > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Smart 8 Times tool wins 30 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 22 14


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LTSMin computed more values than Smart, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than Smart, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart